50mm Summilux-SL ASPH Review

[Chaemono]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I unterstand that there is a lot of pushback to Leica's claims as many suspect that the main motive is to justify their insane pricing. I went out and took some test shots with the TL35, itself very expensive for a crop sensor lens, and the SL50 using the SL. I'm not done going through all the images yet and will hopefully finish everything by tomorrow but I uploaded these four just to show that the SL50 has virtually no purple fringing. These are full resolution and can be downloaded. Perhaps one can take the time to look at the front fenders of the hood of the purple Mercedes. Most lenses would show tons of purple fringing wide open there. Even the M50Apo would show some. The SL50 is virtually purple fringing free. It's not just about resolving "slightly more detail."

https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-m8cbnV/

I uploaded images 5 and 6 in full resolution for download in case someone cares. If anyone wants smaller file sizes to access them via a mobile device let me know. Take a look at the reflection of the lights from the ceiling on the rear of the purple Mercedes. The SL50 shows their natural yellow light. This is a stunning lens. It should be compared to the Zeiss Otus and not the TL35 nor some 300 Dollars Japanese piece of junk.

https://www.smugmug.com/gallery/n-m8cbnV/

Edited March 19, 2017 by Chaemono

[almoore]

This is a stunning lens. It should be compared to the Zeiss Otus and not the TL35 nor some 300 Dollars Japanese piece of junk

I was actually comparing it to a hundred dollar piece of Japanese junk, a piece of junk that in the hands of a talented photographer will have no problem making mages of the highest quality.

 

Leica's profile seems to have changed in the digital age. People used to happily use Ms alongside their Japanese SLRs, using whichever was most appropriate for the task in hand. Today, there seems to be a lot of people who buy Leica because of its perceived status while pouring scorn on 'Japanese junk'. It's kind of sad.

Edited March 19, 2017 by almoore

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[wattsy]

Leica's profile seems to have changed in the digital age. People used to happily use Ms alongside their Japanese SLRs, using whichever was most appropriate for the task in hand. Today, there seems to be a lot of people who buy Leica because of its perceived status while pouring scorn on 'Japanese junk'. It's kind of sad.

 

 

Yes, I think that's true. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and also used to follow the LUG for a number of years prior to that. There has always been an undercurrent of smug superiority but nothing like the brazen sneering that is now displayed, apparently without embarrassment, and this does seem to have coincided with Leica moving from a largely film-only to a largely digital-only company. 

[Chaemono]

Are there no limits to the size/weight/price premium that you're prepared to pay in the pursuit of that notional 'best optical quality'?

 

 

Just for your information, size/weight is similar to the 55 Zeiss Otus. Price is at a 33% premium. For that one gets AF and state of the art weather sealing. It's called value based pricing. So let’s compare optical performance between the two instead of bringing up some Japanese junk and change the subject all of a sudden to talent trumps optical performance. There are pictures taken with cellphones by talented photographers that look better than some taken with Leica equipment. But this has nothing to do with this thread. Let’s stay on topic here. 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

You bought into the M system because of the form factor and the viewfinder. I bought into the SL50 because of the rendering and build quality. That's not status or scorn. Both are valid purchase decisions based on our own individual criteria. If the nifty drew the same way the SL50 does that would be the lens I would use. But it doesn't and I'd know.

 

I'm not worried about my status. I see a difference and that's what matters to me. I have seen many iages where I couldn't get past the purple fringing, CA or blur. Fine if you haven't but I didn't buy the lens to please any one ese but myself.

 

Gordon

[almoore]

You bought into the M system because of the form factor and the viewfinder. I bought into the SL50 because of the rendering and build quality. That's not status or scorn..

The scorn is coming from the guy dismissing 'Japanese junk'.

[almoore]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes, I think that's true. I've been a member of this forum for a long time and also used to follow the LUG for a number of years prior to that. There has always been an undercurrent of smug superiority but nothing like the brazen sneering that is now displayed, apparently without embarrassment, and this does seem to have coincided with Leica moving from a largely film-only to a largely digital-only company.

 

It's intriguing.

 

I think there's a direct correlation between a limited understanding of photography and the notion that your images will automatically improve if you pony up for the biggest sharpest lens available. It's difficult to ignore that many of the people whose photography apparently 'needs' the best lenses have a processing style that's so crude - crushed shadows, hypersturation, blown highlights - any subtleties of optical rendering are lost anyway. It's like the hifi guys arguing about cabling and valves but who only listen to a bit of Vivaldi and the greatest hits collection of Dire Straits.

 

It does worry me that Leica will prioritise the desires of their newer customers over that of longer term users. It would make sense to, because so many of the latter group are happy with their existing lenses.

[Chaemono]

Let's argue about this lens and it's optical capabilities based on facts and show some images to prove them. The only thing I've seen from the Leica haters so far is their made up opinions, ignorance of facts when confronted with them, then changing the subject to the alleged superiority of their own photographic talent, and disparaging other users. This started well before the scorn by others for the Japanese junk that was brought into this discussion.

Edited March 19, 2017 by Chaemono

[almoore]

the Japanese junk that was brought into this discussion.

As well as being inaccurate - these lenses are from junk - there's an ugly undercurrent of xenophobia to your dismissal of Japanese products.

 

The guy who began the thread asked for feedback. I'm offering it. I understand that Leica monitors comments here and I think it's important that they hear from sceptics as well as believers when it comes to their new lens design paradigm.

Edited March 19, 2017 by almoore

[scott kirkpatrick]

It's intriguing.

 

I think there's a direct correlation between a limited understanding of photography and the notion that your images will automatically improve if you pony up for the biggest sharpest lens available. It's difficult to ignore that many of the people whose photography apparently 'needs' the best lenses have a processing style that's so crude - crushed shadows, hypersturation, blown highlights - any subtleties of optical rendering are lost anyway. It's like the hifi guys arguing about cabling and valves but who only listen to a bit of Vivaldi and the greatest hits collection of Dire Straits.

 

It does worry me that Leica will prioritise the desires of their newer customers over that of longer term users. It would make sense to, because so many of the latter group are happy with their existing lenses.

 

Well, it's the internet.  I think Leica has better judgement than you give them credit for.  Even when it leads them to do things that we don't all agree with, like issue Lenny Kravitz special editions at ludicrous but undoubtedly profitable prices.

 

scott

[wattsy]

The only thing I've seen from the Leica haters so far is their made up opinions, ignorance of facts when confronted with them, blah blah

 

 

Far from being a "Leica hater" I'd consider myself a fully paid-up Leica fanboy (I'm genuinely embarrassed to think how many of their products I've bought during the last 20 years) but even I cannot summon up an ounce of enthusiasm for this new 50mm lens. The size, weight and price of it (plus the associated justification I read for buying and using it) makes the lens almost a parody of our times.

[thighslapper]

I'm afraid Leica can't win.

 

If they had compromised on optical quality and speed to make the 50 AF smaller, cheaper and faster they would have been hammered. 

 

If they make it as optically improved as they possibly can at the expense of price and size they get criticised.

 

Look at the Sigma Art lenses, Otus etc ....... with current technology it is well nigh impossible to make a small 35mm format AF prime lens of this or comparable quality. 

 

You can cut corners by using plastic and compromising on longevity and reliability, but that has never been Leica's philosophy.

 

Unfortunately anything Leica produces has to be as good or better than what went before ....... and as they have set the bar very high already that is a tall order. 

 

THAT is the underlying problem.

 

Unlike other Leica cameras the SL offers unparalleled flexibility in using SL, T, M, R and other manufacturers lenses easily and usually to their full potential. 

 

If you don't like the 50/1.4 SL then stick something else on the front. Buying the bloody lens is not compulsory for heavens sake....... nor is criticising those that want it, buy it and like it 

Edited March 19, 2017 by thighslapper

[almoore]

with current technology it is well nigh impossible to make a small 35mm format AF prime lens of this or comparable quality. 

 You can cut corners by using plastic....

The Sony/Zeiss 55mm is a lens of comparable optical quality. It's small, AF, has a metal barrel and costs under a thousand dollars. They also have an oversized 50 f1.4, but at least provide the option of a smaller lens.

 

The SL 50 isn't enormous because it has to be, it's enormous because it can be.

[wattsy]

Yes and as for cutting corners "by using plastic and compromising on longevity and reliability" you only have to look at Leica's S lenses to know that Leica's recent record with AF lenses is far from exemplary. 

[almoore]

Yes and as for cutting corners "by using plastic and compromising on longevity and reliability" you only have to look at Leica's S lenses to know that Leica's recent record with AF lenses is far from exemplary.

It's not even restricted to their recent record. My 80s era 35mm Summicron is probably the worst constructed lens I've ever owned. Optically, it's everything I need and want, but it has to be regularly reassembled due to its appalling structural design.

[Alo Ako]

The Sony/Zeiss 55mm is a lens of comparable optical quality.

 

Not at all: reflections if you take a photo against light. In standard situations many lenses have comparable optical quality. The difference will be shown in non standard situations and wide open aperture.

[thighslapper]

 

The SL 50 isn't enormous because it has to be, it's enormous because it can be.

 

I suggest you discuss this idiotic statement with Mr Karbe. 

[almoore]

Not at all: reflections if you take a photo against light. In standard situations many lenses have comparable optical quality. The difference will be shown in non standard situations and wide open aperture.

What are these reflections you refer to?

 

It's one of the most flare-free lenses I've ever used. All of my Leica lenses are more flare prone. Good though Leica lenses are, nobody with any great experience of using them would claim that they're great when it comes to handling backlight.

[almoore]

I suggest you discuss this idiotic statement with Mr Karbe.

 

I never learn. I really need to start heeding those basic life lessons that can help keep me safe.

 

Never get between a hippo and water. Don't poke the snake. And, most importantly of all, never ever question the wisdom of a middle-aged camera hobbyist when it comes to his choice of lenses.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[AlexP]

to make it short, here are the pros/cons

 

Pros: luscious bokeh and lovely color rendition (typical Leica characteristic that we all know)

 

Cons:

1. Lens is a beast

2. vignetting wide open

3. AF is on the slow slow side (Hardcore Leica user doesn't like when i said AF is super slow)

4. minimum focus distance is long

5. Price (this is subjective...since anything relate to the "red dot" is not cheap)

 

Is there alternative out there? of course. At the end of the day, it is your money to use. You don't have to please anyone but yourself. If you like it, buy it but at the same time, you can't just discount all the cons this lens has and blindly defense for it. After all, these are just tool. Happy shooting.

Edited March 19, 2017 by AlexP